Value priorities and role salience in different countries: Some findings of the work importance study

Tilburg University

Value priorities and role salience in different countries

Sverko, B.

Publication date:

1994

Document Version

Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record

Link to publication in Tilburg University Research Portal

Citation for published version (APA):

Sverko, B. (1994). Value priorities and role salience in different countries: Some findings of the work importance study. (WORC Paper). WORC, Work and Organization Research Centre.

General rights

Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain

• You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal Take down policy

CBM R 9585 1994

NR.45

i~ii

l6 ~~ik ~n~d UrE~ar~i,rrtiura Xa~ecErcb Cejrtrf~

~ii~uiuinu~HuiiiuiNuiiiuiu

Value Priorities and Role Salience in Different Countries:

Some Findings of the Work Importance Study

Branimir ~verko

WORC PAPER 94.11.04516

Paper prepared for the Symposium 'Values and Work' WORC, Tilburg University, The Netherlands

November 9-12, 1994

WORC papers have not been subjected to formal review or approach.

They are distributed in order to make the results of current research

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Value priorities and role salience in different countries:

Some findings of the Work Importance Study

Branimir ~`verko University of Zagreb, Croatia

This paper summarizes some findings of the Work Importance Study (WIS). The purpose of this large-scale, cross-cultural project was twofold: to develop an integrated series of ineasures for the assessment of values and major life roles, including the work role, and to advance the cross-cultural study of valuepriorities and life-role salience. A large amount of data has been collected and analyzed, comprising questionnaire responses from over 30,000 respondents from 10 countries (Australia, Belgian Flanders, Canada, Croatia, Italy, ]apan, Poland, Portugal, South Africa, and the USA). The paper summarizes the findings concerningthe factor structure of values across the countries, value priorities and role importance in different countries, and the clustering of countries based on their value similarity. Some new data from Croatia, examiningvalues change after a 10-year period, are also presented.

Introduction

Work Importance Study (WIS) is a large-scale, cross-cultural project concerned both with values, or rewards which people seek from life, and with importance assigned to work and to several other salient life activities or roles. The project was launched, and for many years well coordinated, by the late professor and distinguished scholar ponald E. Super. Super died in June this year, before he could see the final result of his WIS venture - the multiple-authored, cross-national monograph which I had the privilege to co-edit with him (Super and Sverko, in press). It is this forthcoming volume that I have relied on quite heavily in preparing this presentation.

goal is seen as the not only the prerequisite for achieving the second, but is also considered important in its own right: truly cross-national measures of values and life-role importance are needed in both research and practice." (~verko 8z Super, in press) That is why so much effort has been spent on the conceptual development and psychometric evaluation of the WIS measures. Rita Claes addressed this issue and explained the steps that were undertaken in order to obtain two truly international, logically and psychometrically sound inventories - the Values Scale and the Salience Inventory.

The development of the WIS instruments was a laborious and long process, partly because WIS was not organized as an unitary, centralized project. It has rather involved an interactive, participative research managing in which that was accomplished was the result of a collective endeavor. All decisions and plans for action had to be agreed at the working conferences, while between the conferences the researchers were busy at home - reviewing literature, preparing inventory items, testing pilot instruments, and so on. Of course, there is a drawback to such research managing: it takes time and resources. But, on the other hand, there are advantages. Perhaps the most important one is a broader perspective resulting from the cooperation of researchers from different countries, both West and East, developed and less developed, capitalist and socialist. And to bring together such different perspectives is indeed important when one investigates values in a cross-cultural perspective. Further, only this cooperative process enables one to obtain instruments that are truly international, and not - as is usual - instruments made in one culture and then translated and used in some diíierent cultures with unknown success. Our instruments have been carefully checked and rechecked in each of the participating countries and their reliability and construct validity are well understood. So they are seen as providing a good groundwork for cross-national analyses undertaken in the so-called Main Study.

samples: a secondary-school sample, a higher-education sample, and an adult sample. Different sampling procedures were used (see Super 8t Sverko, in press) but, in essence, it could be said that the secondary-school samples and most of the higher-education samples were methodologically well founded and mainly representative of the respective populations in most of the countries, while the adult samples were mostly samples of convenience. Altogether, the samples in all the countries numbered over 30,000 subjects. Thus, an impressive data pool was available for the cross-national analyses.

The purpose of this presentation is to communicate some of the cross-national findings, simply summarizing the analyses presented in the forthcoming WIS volume. Additionally, some new data from Croatia, examining the changes in values after a 10- year period, will also be presented.

Factor Structure: Evidence of cross-national universality

The first issue that we considered in our cross-national examination was the factor structure of the variables. Do similar factors underlie value and role-salience variables in different nations? What is the degree of congruence among them? Does the analysis confirm the assumed universality ofthe factor structure of values?

orientations.

The first factor, interpreted as Utilitarian Orientation (LJt), is defined by five largely extrinsic values (Economics, Advancement, Prestige, Authority, and Achievement), stressing the importance of economic conditions and career progress. The factor was quite constant across all of the samples. The second factor, named Orientation Towards

Self-Actualization(sA), is defined primarily by Ability Utilization, Personal Development, and

Altruism, while Achievement, Aesthetics, and Creativity also have salient loadings in some of the samples. All these values are typical intrinsic, inner-oriented goals important in personal

development and self-realization. The third factor, Individualistic Orientation (In), defined primarily by Life Style and Autonomy, stresses the importance of an autonomous way of living. In some of the samples Creativity and Variety also appear to be saturated with this factor. The fourth factor is labelled Social Orientation (So), because it is defined primarily by Social Interaction and Social Relations, the two group-oriented values. In some of the samples loadings, on this factor include also Variety and Altruism. Finally, the fifth factor was tentatively labelled as Adventurous Orientation (Av); it is defined primarily by Risk, with Physical Activity and Authority also having projections on this factor.

In the role salience domain, a perfectly simple structure was found (Kulenovic 8c Super, in press). In the series of analyses of 15 salience measures, five clearly defined factors were isolated in all of the countries. These factors correspond exactly to the five measured life roles.

This finding is important for two reasons. Firstly, it is important in its own right: it contributes to better understanding of values and roles and proves for the generality of the interrelations of their components. Since most psycho-social studies are done within the framework of western European culture, one can never be certain whether discovered relations are valid for all of mankind. Our study supports the view that the observed value relations are not bound to a single culture, but rather seem to be pertinent to human behavior in general.

The second reason is heuristic: the demonstration of factor invariance is an important methodological step which should precede any comparison of the importance levels of the variables. The comparison of importance levels is justified only if the variables share the same meaning across the groups compared. And this is indicated by the similarity of their factor structures, which is usually taken as evidence for what has been termed the dimensional identity (Frijda 8L Jahoda, 1966) or comparative dimensionality (Eysenck 8Z Eysenck, 1983) of the variables. Since our analyses supported the factor similarity across the national groups studied, the comparison of their value and role importance levels (i.e., of average scores or rankings) seemed warranted.

Values across the countries: Prominence of self-fulfilment

Most definitions and theoretical elaborations of values stress the dimension of

importance as an essential feature of values (e.g., Locke, 1976; Rokeach, 1973; Schwartz 8z

necessarily similar, our cross-national comparisons combined both approaches (Sverko, in press). The comparison of samples from different countries revealed that both similarities and differences exist in their value priorities.

The cross-cultural similarities are most easily observed in the hierarchy of values, which appeared to be rather similar across the countries. Three typical intrinsic values - Personal Development, Ability Utilization, and Achievement - took the top positions in almost all of the samples. On the lower extreme, willingness to risk and the ambition for authority and prestige were declared of little importance everywhere. Economics, the key utilitarian value, occupied the 8th median rank. Thus it seems to be a matter of common consent across all of the nations that the fulfilment of one's potential, or self-realization, is an extremely important life goal for the majority of our subjects.

Highlighting self-actualization is not new in social sciences. It can be traced back to the philosophical ideas of "young" Marx, who regarded human work as a creative activity which should provide an opportunity for the realization of the human "generic essence". This basic notion was later elaborated and technically adopted by the psychologists of the so-called human potential movement. Goldstein (1939) considered self-actualization, or the tendency to realize all of onés potential, as the master human motive. The leading theoretician of the human potential movement Abraham Maslow (1970) postulated a hierarchy of needs progressing from the basic biological needs, through important psychological needs, to a culmination in self-actualization.

young people and for adults.

Of course, the dominant importance of the self-fulfilment values is a general finding, based on the average scores, which can mask over marked individual differences. A breakdown of our adult samples by occupational levels showed that for unskilled workers self-fulfilment is not so prominent; they placed more emphasis on the utilitarian and social values.

Role salience: Sizable age-difierences

Unlike the analysis of values, the examination of the role salience data revealed significant differences between young people and adults. I will illustrate this with the Croatian data, but the same pattern was observed in the analysis of data from other countries. Figure 1 presents the finding.

The figure shows the average importance that four Croatian groups (two secondary-school groups, university students, and adults) attach to each of the five essential human activities (work, study, community service, homemaking, and leisure). The importance of the roles was assessed by the Participation Scale and the Commitment Scale of the Salience Inventory. As Rita Claes explained, the Participation Scale is behavioral in content: it asks respondents to state how much time and effort they devote to a role, how often they think, read, and talk about it, etc. The Commitment Scale is affective in content: it asks subjects to rate how they feel in relations to a role. In Figure 1, the two measures have been collapsed to produce a combined index of role importance.

secondary-school students.

Adults, however, show a quite different pattern of role salience. Clearly, the most important activity in their life is work, closely followed by homemaking. The worker and homemaker roles are clearly given priority. Much less importance is attached to leisure, and then to studying. Community service is the lowest ranked activity again. Of course, all these findings are based on average scores, masking over marked individual differences.

110 LEISURE WORK 100 90 STUDY HOME ~ WORK HOME ~ o LEISURE I ~ .I r. I I . ~ `1 j ~ 80 70 60 50 COMMUN(TY COMMUNfTY

YEAR 10 YEAR 12 UNIVERSITY ADULT STUDENTS STUDENTS STUDENTS WORKERS

Figure 1. The average role importance for Croatian lOth year students (N-923), 12th year students (N-948), university students (N-348) and

adult workers (N-344).

Clustering of countries: emergence of geo-cultural entities

The task of understanding national characteristics is always extremely difficult, if not an impossible one. Yet, in the two chapters of the forthcoming volume we concentrated on cross-national differences in an attempt to identify what may be the unique emphases in each country. As a result, each ofthe countries has been portrayed with a short description stressing its own, partially unique, pattern of values (Sverko, in press) and role importance (Kulenovie

8t Super, in press).

In these analyses it was quite evident that the degree of (dis)similarity between different national samples varied. Therefore, the question of possible clustering of countries is raised. Is it possible to identify relatively homogeneous groups of national samples which share similar patterns of values or role salience?

The clustering of countries was studied with a hierarchical cluster analysis of the SPSS~PC-~ CLUSTER procedure (Norusis~SPSS, 1988). Performed separately for values and roles, the analysis used the matrices of inean scores, with Ward's method of cluster formation and with squared Euclidian distances (the sum of the squared differences over all of the variables) as a measure of sample similarity. For the value-based analysis (~verko, in press), the resulting process of agglomerative hierarchical clustering is depicted in Figure 2.

The dendogram shows the clusters being combined and the distances at which they combined. Looking from left to right, the samples which combine earlier (at short distances) are more similar than those which combine later (at greater distances). Consequently, the clusters formed early are more homogeneous than those which merge later, at a higher level of integration.

As Figure 2 reveals, the main determinant of cluster formation seems to be ethnic

kinship, because almost all of the early formed clusters are nationally homogeneous. Thus, the

A2 A3 ~ IT1 IT2 B2 PL2 -61 B3 ~

CR1

CR.3 ~

CR 2

US2 T

Rescaled Distance Cluster Combine

5 10 15 20 25

Figure 2. Hierarchical clustering of countries according to their Values Scale mean scores. (From ~`verko, in press).

At a higher level of integration, the clusters agglomerate in three higher-order clusters, which correspond to three meaningful geo-cultural regions. In the bottom part of the dendogram, a cluster is formed which combines all of the Canadian samples, both English and French Canadians, the three US samples, the South African samples, and one Australian sample. It was labelled the North American cluster (also called "New World"). In the middle, there is a small cluster comprising only the three Japanese samples. They merged very early, at a small distance, and remained an independent, nationally homogeneous cluster until the last stages of agglomerative clustering. Finally, the upper part of the dendogram comprises a cluster aggregating 14 samples: two Australian and 12 European. All the European samples merged together in this cluster, and none joined either of the other two clusters. Thus, the appeal for united Europe works, at least in our dendogram.

The clustering of the samples based on the role salience data (Kulenovic 8z Super, in press) was somewhat different. In this case, most of the early formed clusters are based on the age-and-status similarity. For example, most of the adult groups tended to merge in a cluster regardless of nationality. Nevertheless, on a higher level of integration, all of these primary clusters tended to agglomerate in three groupings of countries virtually identical with the three clusters shown for values.

What are the essential distinguishing characteristics of the three groups of countries? In an attempt to answer this question, the unweighted mean scores for each value were computed from the means of all the samples making up each cluster. The results are given in Figure 3, which makes it possible to compare the three groups of countries in terms of their value

Persora! Dvi Personal DvI Ability Util 10 8 7 6

Similarities are, again, obvious: the top ranked values (Personal Development and Ability Utilization) and low ranked values (Authority, Risk, Variety, and Prestige) occupy similar positions in all three hierarchies. This is congruent with what was said before, namelly, that self-realization is an extremely important life goal for the majority of our subjects. On the other hand, differences in importance ratings are seen in a number of values. They are easily recognized by the slopes of the lines connecting identical values in different clusters: the higher the inclination, the greater the difference in the value importance. An analogue analysis has been performed for the role salience data too. As a result of both analyses, a list of the cluster distinguishing characteristics was compiled and is summarized is Table 1. Not many distinguishing features have been found in the analyses of the cluster differences. Our clusters appear, perhaps, more similar than different. But, anyway, how are we to interpret the observed differences?

Of course, this is largely a matter of speculation. A number of cultural, social, and economic factors may interact to shape the values of people of the same nation or cultural unit. What different cultural groups seem to value may be related to differences in their economic growth, degree of industrialization, degree of urbanization, political climate, religious background, historical circumstances, etc. We can only hypothesize which of the factors may have been influential by looking how they relate to the clustering of countries. Only the factors whose appearance, or level of appearance, is idiosyncratic to particular clusters are likely to be the candidates, while the factors with similar appearances in different clusters are less likely to be influential.

Table 1

Groupings of Countries According to Values and Role Salience: A Cluster Analysis Summary

CLUSTER NATIONAL SAMPLES DISTINGUISHING

NAME MAKING UP CLUSTERS CHARACTERISTICS

New World All US samples

All Canadian~`

All South African~` One Australian

Europe

Japan

All Belgian Both Italian The one Polish All Portuguese All Croatian Two Australian

The three Japanese samples

A value pattern implying a drive for upward mobility, material success and prestige, with less emphasis on the less worldly aspects of life. Role salience characterized by the importance

attached to work and homemaking: both are considered important as shown by participation, commitment, and value expectations.

High valuation ofrelationships and understanding among people, a tendency towards an autonomous life style, and strong rejection of authority. A"flat" salience profile with relatively more emphasis attached to studying than in other two geo-cultural units.

High valuation of aesthetics and creativity; relatively low rating of all other values, especially of values indicative of upward mobility and material success. Low ratings of all life-role activities.

~`NOTE: In the values-based clusters all of the Canadian and South African samples

What is, then, common to all countries within a cluster and different across clusters? We have been able to figure out only an attribute loosely identified as"geocultural similarity": it includes both geogaphical proximity and similar cultural traditions (~verko 8z Super, in press). One cluster assembles mostly New World countries with the predominantly Protestant tradition, the next brings together European countries mainly with Roman Catholic tradition, and the third cluster include only the samples from Japan, a country with the Shintoist-Buddhistic tradition. These different cultural traditions account, perhaps, for at least some of the observed value variations.

How stable are the findings? Some recent data from Croatia

In their recent analysis of the articles published in the Journal of Cross-Cultural

Psychology, ~ngel and Smith ( 1994) refer to the difficulty of assembling truly collaborative

international research teams. "The development of such teams takes time, tact, and resources, and publication pressures militate against setting them up" (p. 50). The members of the WIS team are well aware ofthis observation. The volume presenting our findings will be available in mid-1995, fifteen years after the project was launched, and ten years after first data collected. Will the findings be obsolete when they are finally published?

As characteristics which are largely shaped by the early socialization process, values are considered to be relatively stable behavioral dispositions, resistant to change within a short period of time such as a decade. But, there are periods when changes may be enhanced, and some authors suggest that the 1980s, the time of our study, may have been such an period. "The 1980s is a period of widespread social change ... through the world. It is the time when many people are questioning traditional social values." (Hunt 8t Colander, 1987, p. 133)

cross-national research projects. One of them, the European Values Studies (see Ester, Halman 8t Ruud de Moor, 1993), surveyed, in 1981, the basic values in a number of Western European countries. In 1990, the survey was replicated. "The changes in work values in the period of 1981-1990 were predominantly in the direction of a growing importance attached to the opportunity for personal development in a job. However, the changes were moderate." (Zanders, 1983, p. 151) Another major project of that period, an eight-country study of the meaning of work (MOW, 198~), was also replicated in some of the participating countries. Originally conducted in 1983~84, the study was replicated in 1989 in Germany (Ruiz Quintanila 8z Wilpert 1991) and in the USA (England, 1991). Both replication studies report a statistically significant decline in the level of importance attached to working as a life role, but no congruent shifts in the importance ofwork goals have been established in the two countries. Besides, the decline in the importance of work (0.25 and 0.13 of the standard deviation in Germany and the USA, respectively) has been designeted as"moderate to small in size". As Ruiz Quintanila 8z Wilpert (1991) note "...our data seem to reflect some changes, although terrns used in the value debate ('dramatic changes') do not seem to be justified." (p. 102)

affecting the living standards of the majority of people. How hase this affected their work values?

No systematic replication of the WIS study has been attempted as yet, but some data collected recently by two of our students allow at least for some preliminary comparisons. In November 1993, Susanne Kristofic administered the Values Scale to 446 secondary-school students (year 12) in four different schools in Zagreb. These data will be compared with the 1983 data for 948 secondary-school students (year 12) from the whole of Croatia. In spring 1994, Lolita Cikojevic administered the Values Scale to 298 university students from different departments. These data will be compared with the 1983 data for 348 university students of similar departmental composition.

Before any comparison was attempted I asked six of my colleagues, all experienced in the study of values, to predict the outcome of the comparison. For each of the values on the Values Scale, they were to indicate whether they expected that its importance had increased, decreased, or remained unchanged. Although our agreement in the estimates was modest, we were unanimous in one prognosis: we all predicted a considerable increase in importance of the utilitarian values, in particular economic security and advancement. Two accounts accompanied this prediction. One is that the implementation of an economic system promoting entrepreneurship and economic efficiency lays more emphasis on the values stressing upward mobility, material success and prestige. The second explanation relied on the Maslovian needs-reduction notion: diminished living standards, economic insecurity, and war-time austerity are all conducive to the value shift stressing the lower-level needs.

differences at the 0.01 level in t-test comparisons.

As can be seen, most of the 1983-199314 differences attained a statistical significance. But, to reduce the possibility that sampling error is declared as "change", I will limit the discus-sion to the values which congruently changed their importance in both analyses (i.e., both for secondary-school and university students). Clearly, the two groups of values changed significantly in both groups of students: all of the "utilitarian" values and all of the "individualistic" values increased in importance. The increase is substantial: on average it amounts to 0.69 standard deviation units for the five "utilitarian values" and to 0.55 for the three "individualistic" values. The change towards a higher endorsement of the utilitarian values has been clearly predicted and explained above. The increased emphasis on individualistic values is, perhaps, a consequence of the general post- socialist move away from collectivism.

0,00 2,00 4,00 6,00 8,00 10,00 12,00 14,00 16,00 18,00 20,00 Ability Utilization ' Achievement ' Personal Developmeni t Participalion in Decisions ' Aesthetics Creativity ' Autonomy ' Life Slyle ' Variety ' Altriusm ' Social Interaction ' Social Relations ' Working Conditions t Economics ' Advancement ' Preslige ' Authority ' Risk ' -1-Physical Activity

Figure 4. 1983-1993 differences in mean Values Scale scores in Croatia:

sA

0,00 2,00 4,00 6,00 8,00 10,00 12,00 14,00 16,00 18,00 20,00 Abilily Utilizalion Achievement ' Personal Development Participation in Decisions ' Aesthetics Creativity Autonomy ' Life Style ' Variety ' Altriusm ' Social Interaction Social Relations Working Conditions ' Economics ' Advancement ' Prestige ' Authority ' Risk ' ~ Physical Activity

Figure S. _{1983-1994 differences in mean Values Scale scores in Croatia:}

sA

In

Whatever the explanation, the observed changes in values resurrect our concern about the durability of the findings. It has been noted that nations change and that their characteristics established in one period of time may not necessarily persist (e.g. Klineberg, 1954). Therefore, periodical replication studies are needed in order to check on the previous findings and to capture possible changes over time.

But on the other hand, there seem to be some stable components in our findings. Gergen (1973) speaks about "a continuum of historical durability", suggesting that psycho-social phenomena differ in their susceptibility to historical influence. He also suggests that cross-cultural methods might be used to discern the relative durability of phenomena: the similarity of a finding across different cultures would be indicative of its durability across time. As shown above, our cross-cultural analysis indicated a remarkable pervasiveness of the self-fulfilment orientation: Personal Development and Ability Utilization are found to be prevalent values in all of the countries. The 1993194 data from Croatia do not alter this conclusion: although the utilitarian values came up in importance, Personality Development and Ability Utilization have preserved their topmost importance.

References

England, G.W. (1991). The meaning of working in the USA: Recent changes. European Work

and Organizational Psychologists, 1, 111- 124

Ester, J., Halman, L., 8t de Moor, R. (Eds.). (1993). The individualizing society. Value

changes in Europe and North America. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.

Eysenck, H.J 8z Eysenck, S.B.G. (1983). Recent advances in the cross-cultural study of personality. In J.N. Butcher 8t C.D. Spielberger (Eds.) Advances inpersonality assessment, Vo1.2. Hillsdale, N.Y.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Frijda, N. 8z Jahoda, G. (1966). On the scope and methods of cross-cultural research.

International Journal ofPsychology, 1, 109-127

Gergen, K.J. (1973). Social psychology as history. Journal ofPersonality and Social

Goldstein, K. (1939). The organizam. New York: American Book

Hunt, E.F. 8z Colander, D.S. (1987). Social Science. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.

Klineberg, O. (1954). Social Psychology, New York: Henry Holt 8t Comp.

Kulenovic, A. 8z Super, D.E. The five major life roles viewed cross-nationaly. In Super, D.E. 8z ~verko, B. (Eds.) Life roles, values, and careers in internationalperspective. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc. (in press)

Locke, E.A. (1976). The nature and causes ofjob satisfaction. In D.D.Dunnette (Ed.)

Handbook ofIndustrial and Organizational Psychology, Chicago: Rand McNally College

Publishing Co.

Maslow, A.H. (1970). Motivation andpersonality (2nd ed.). New York: Harper and Row. MOW International Research Team (1987). The meaning of working. London: Academic Press.

Norusis, M.J.~SPSS. (1988). SPSS~PC-~ advanced statistics V2.0 for the IBMPC~XT~AT and

PC~2. Chicago: SPSS Inc.

~ngel, LJ. 8z Smith, P.B. (1994). Who are we and where are we going? Journal of

Cross-Cultural Psychology, 25, 25-53.

Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.

Ruiz Quintanilla, S.A. 8t Wilpert, B. (1991). Are work meanings changing. European Work

and OrganizationalPsychologists, 1, 91- 109.

Schwartz, S.H. 8z Bilsky, W. (1987). Toward a universal psychological structure of human values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 550-562.

Super, D.E. (1980). A life-span, life-space approach to career development. Journal of

OccupationalPsychology, 52, 129-148.

Super, D.E. 8t ~verko, B. (Eds.) Life Roles, Values, and Careers in International Perspective. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc. (in press)

Super, D.E. 8c ~verko, B. The Findings of the Work Importance Study: An Overview. In Super, D.E. 8z S~verko, B. (Eds.) Li.f'e roles, values, and careers in international perspective. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc. (in press)

~verko, B. (1987) The structure of work values: A cross-national comparison. Acta Instituti

~verko, B. The structure and hierarchy of values viewed cross- nationaly. In Super, D.E. Bt ~verko, B. (Eds.) Life roles, values, and careers in internationalperspective. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass, Inc. (in press)

Yankelovicz, D. (1981). New rules in American life: Searching for self-fulfillment in a world turned upside down. Psychology Today, April, 35-91.

Zanders, H. (1983). Changing work values. In Ester, J., Halman, L., 8z de Moor, R. (Eds.).

The individualizing society. Yalue changes in Europe and North America. (pp. 129-153).